2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Current extent, temporal trends, and rates of gully erosion in the Gumara watershed, Northwestern Ethiopia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
8
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
8
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In terms of soil loss, our study indicated that the soil loss rate of the UA-GH-GB system initially increased to the peak value and then gradually declined and stabilized (Fig. 10), which was consistent with the results of many studies on rill and gully headcut erosion under different conditions (slope, initial step height, flow discharge, soil type, and soil stratification; Bennett, 1999;Bennett and Casalí, 2001;Gordon et al, 2007;Wells et al, 2009a;Shi et al, 2020a). Both the scour depth and sediment production increased in the initial period of underlying surface adjustment, while, once the plunge pool development was maintained, the sediment yield decreased and gradually stabilized (Bennett et al, 2000).…”
Section: Spatiotemporal Change In Runoff Energy Consumption and Soil Erosionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In terms of soil loss, our study indicated that the soil loss rate of the UA-GH-GB system initially increased to the peak value and then gradually declined and stabilized (Fig. 10), which was consistent with the results of many studies on rill and gully headcut erosion under different conditions (slope, initial step height, flow discharge, soil type, and soil stratification; Bennett, 1999;Bennett and Casalí, 2001;Gordon et al, 2007;Wells et al, 2009a;Shi et al, 2020a). Both the scour depth and sediment production increased in the initial period of underlying surface adjustment, while, once the plunge pool development was maintained, the sediment yield decreased and gradually stabilized (Bennett et al, 2000).…”
Section: Spatiotemporal Change In Runoff Energy Consumption and Soil Erosionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Nevertheless, the GB was always characterized by the sediment deposition for the inflow discharge of < 4.8 m 3 h −1 , whereas the sediment was deposited firstly and then gradually transported as the inflow discharge increased to 6.0 and 7.2 m 3 h −1 . Similar phenomena were also found in some previous studies on rill headcut erosion (Bennett, 1999;Bennett and Casalí, 2001;Gordon et al, 2007;Wells et al, 2009a). This further indicated that the soil loss/deposition process of the gully system was significantly influenced by three landform units and especially by most of the flow energy (77.5 %) being consumed at gully heads, due to jet flow erosion strongly weakening the sediment transport capacity of flow on the gully bed and, thus, changing the soil loss/deposition process of gully system.…”
Section: Spatiotemporal Change In Runoff Energy Consumption and Soil Erosionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…e rate of soil loss ranges from 37 to 246 t ha −1 yr −1 due to the variations in the site-specific biophysical conditions of the area and management practice [15,16]. In addition to its strong impact on soil removal, gully erosion damaged (kept out of production) a considerable amount of cultivable and cultivated land [17] such as 2.5% of the Warke watershed [18] and 2.13% of the Teter watershed [17]. As a result, soil erosion causes a significant negative impact on soil nutrient, agricultural production, and economic problems and painful environmental damage in the country [19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%